W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:12:30 +0000
Message-ID: <50CF284E.6030509@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Clayton H Lewis wrote:
> I believe this takes too narrow a view of what javascript does. it's not 
> just for things like animations and special effects. it also does things 
> like checking that required fields have been filled in in a form, 
> checking that values that are provided are valid, and sometimes 

These are things that the server must re-check, otherwise it has a 
serious security problem (it has no control over what happens on the 
user's machine - a suitably skilled user can subvert the scripting), so 
it should be easy to write a page that still submits properly, without 
the scripting.  It is easy to make scripting abort a submission if it is 
enabled and finds an error.  Unfortunately, people seem to like 
transferring values into a hidden form and having the scripting submit that.

[Large quantity of bottom quoting removed.  That's another change for 
the worse.]


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 14:13:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 December 2012 14:13:10 GMT